Saturday, January 31, 2015

FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 2): The Columbia (S. C.) Times, of
Saturday, publishes the following extract: from a letter, from a “perfectly
reliable source,” in relation to Clarissa, who is sentenced to be hung for
poisoning the child of Colonel Wilson. It is a fearful revelation [of] crime.

Yorkville, Sept. 20, 1855. – The negro Clarissa was tried on
Tuesday and found guilty of the charge of murder, by poisoning Col. Wilson’s
child. She confessed that she had also poisoned two children for Mr. McCully,
and one for Mr. Marshall of Newberry, and probably one for Mr. Berry. She also
confessed that she had prepared poison as often as three times for Mrs. Wilson
her late mistress. She also stated that there is now a poisoner in Columbia,
and that there is an old lady there, who she has not named, that is now kept in
bed by poison, administered by her servant. She has proven herself so be devil
on earth. Every day she is making more confessions.

FULL TEXT: Paris, Dec. 12 – After two score women slayers
have gone free or escaped with very light sentences in the Paris courts on the
plea of “crime of passion” during the past few months, a jury of men has acted
with sternness and sent an elegant middle-aged killer to 20 years of hard labor.

Mme. Fabre Bulle dignified, fashionably dressed wife of a
wealthy clock maker, used all her feminine wiles in the dock to win the sympathy
of the court, but she had committed a horrible double murder and her method was
harsh and premeditated. The usual appeal of having been swept away by love fell
flat.

Evidence showed that this woman, at the age of 48, bought a
revolver and took lessons in marksmanship before she set to work on her
victims.

A curious aspect of the case was the fact that for 20 years
Mme. Fabre Bulle had been a loyal, faithful wife. The impulse for flirtation
came to her while riding in a subway She was then 43 and she made the
acquaintance ofJoseph. Merle, a
well-to-do business man who was 12 years her junior. They fell in love and the
woman deserted her husband, although Merle told her that he was living with
Mme. Julliard, sweetheart of 49.

~ Killed for Love ~

When the new love failed to defeat the old, Mme. Fabre Bulle
sought to outshine her rival by moving into the Merle household. This went on
for some time, with, both women seeking favor without any apparent advantage.
Finally, with determined cruelty, the new-comer shot and killed Merle while he
was asleep, and then turned her fire on her rival.

“He promised to break with her and he had begged me to
divorce my husband,” said Mme. Fabre Bulle when she was asked in court for an
explanation of her act. She kept her head bowed, but tried to use her
attractive eyes with mournful effect, though her attitude during the trial was
one of patient boredom. Some women slayers had put it over and she, with wealth
and distinction, seemed to feel secure. After describing the double killing she
said:

“Why should I say any more since no one will believe? I
tried to kill myself but the trigger was caught and nothing happened I wandered
about the place not knowing what to do next.”

~ Husband Testified ~

Evidence showed that she had fled to her husband’s home, but
she could not arouse the servants. Scantily dressed, she wandered about the
woods during the night, and in the morning stumbled into a police station,
barefoot and tired. Medical evidence revealed that both victims might have been
saved if an alarm had been given in time. This gave the fair accused a chance
to fall in a faint.

When the husband was called to the stand he begged the court
to try to understand him. He said:

“I am overwhelmed, but I must emphasize that for 20 years
this unfortunate woman was devoted and respectable wife. What happened? What
mysterious force dragged her into this gulf it is a mystery. “I am divorced
now. She is only a stranger to me. What she did was so unbelievable, so
difficult to understand. She was the last person in the world I would have
expected to enact such a tragedy. She herself closed the door of her home and
never opened it again.”

The jury deliberated for less than an hour and found the
woman guilty on every point raised. They agreed to “extenuating circumstances,”
which saved her from a sentence to death in addition, she was fined 220,000
francs, which will go to relatives of her victims. When she heard the verdict,
Mme. Fabre Bulle fainted again, but this time she did a very serious job of it.

Chongqing, China – In April 2006, in Chongqing’s Fuling
District, villagers noticed that, Yang Renyou,a man who died of what was considered a mysterious disease that
had long plagued the area had marks on his neck indicating he had been
strangled. Investigation showed that he had also been poisoned – by his wife,
Zhang Zongqin, 36.

As police built their case against the husband-killer,
evidence revealed that they had a serial killer case on their hands. Over a
period of 14 years, 1992-2006, the woman had murdered 6 others, had injured an
additional 27 and had even poisoned livestock. It was these mysterious animal
deaths that led locals to think some disease was plaguing the locale.

According to the prosecutor, Zhang Zongqin’s motivation was
usually revenge – getting even with others over trifling slights. In one
instance she attempted to murder four of her in-laws (bothers- and
sisters-in-law) who, following her arrest, she claimed were “not nice” to her
and had “made her lose face.” One of them died from poisoning. She was upset
that one of her second husband’s friends failed to invite her to dinner. She is
accused of murdering him and also her husband’s parents in 2003. It is reported
that they died only after a series of failed attempts.

Her first husband was named He. They had two daughters. The
wife killed the 2-year-old in 1993 and a 1-year-old in 1993. The couple were
divorced in 1995. Prosecutors say that in 1997, she poisoned a 12-year-old
nephew with rat poison, but we was saved by medical attention.

The total count of Zhang Zongqin’s victims is thought to be
34: 7 successful murders plus 27 “injuries.”

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

FULL TEXT: A wave of husband-killing is sweeping over the
West. Within the past few months many women have put their husbands to death,
in several instances so that they might wed others. Even the hanging of a
murderess in Vermont has not been able to check this. Iowa illustrates what is
true of many other States. Of eight women who have recently been tried in that
State for murdering their husbands, but two have been convicted and but one is
now in State’s prison. This record is all the more remarkable when the other
side is investigated. Within the same period four men have murdered, or
attempted to murder, their wives and sweethearts. With the same ratio of
convictions prevailing as in the cases of accused women but one of these men
would be convicted. But every one one of the four men has as a matter of fact,
been convicted.

A criminologist claims that the wide attention and notoriety
which the execution of a woman attracts shows how rarely a woman is thus
punished, although, he says, the number of murders committed by women in this
country every year is very large. He asked whether an undue leniency is not
often shown them by courts and juries because of their sex. Lombroso referred
to this subject. In several of the recent cases in the West the women were
freed either by judicial or executive action after conviction, and in others
the juries disagreed.

[“Husband-Killing – A Wave of This Kind of Crime Is Sweeping
Over the West.” The Times-Tribune (Alexandria, In.), Apr. 6, 1906, p. 3]

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

FULL TEXT: Even the casual observer of North Carolina events
as reflected in the public prints will have noticed that the habit of wives
separating themselves from husbands by force and arms is of alarming frequency
here of late. That is, the practice, which seems to be on the way of becoming
habit, should be alarming to husbands. The unmarried male may not so much
concern but he is by no means from the possibility of violence at the hands of
lady friends. The husband-killers are not only performing with disturbing
frequency but it is more or less of a custom for juries to say the job was well
done, or words that have the same effect.

There are husbands who deserve to be killed on general
principles and seeing that the woman will usually have the sympathy of a male
jury it is comparatively easy to get that angle into the minds of the average
juror. In a recent case the territory for the prosecution showed in the wife in
an ugly light. She was by no means a martyr. But the man was of bad repute. So
the jury decided he had it coming.

An eminent criminal lawyer – one of the rare type who
appears either for the defense or the prosecution – was saying recently, in
expressing an be lodged in the minds of the jury that the deceased deserved to
be killed on general principles a verdict of acquittal is more than likely,
regardless of the, evidence. If the jury feels that the deceased deserved
little consideration it will overlook the irregularities on the part ofthe slayer unless the circumstances are so
aggravated that it is impossible to overlook all. And that’s where the wives
have the advantage whenthey decide to
remove an undesirable husband and do the removing either “accidentally” – or
have it appear so – or on purpose and offer the meanness of the deceased as an
excuse. The woman has the edge there but it’s the reverse when the man removes
the woman. The fact that a husband killed his wife sets the tide against the killer
at the outset; and it takes overwhelming testimony to find a way of escape for
him. There is no thought in such case that the woman may have deserved killing.
All wives are given the benefit of the doubt while the doubts are resolved
against husbands who kill wives. If it appear from the evidence that the wife
may have provoked the killing the jury will agree that it was not the husband's
business to do the job.

Far be it from us to lodge the thought in the mind of any
wife that an undesirable husband may be removed with comparative safety, on the
whole case the chances are good that there is always the possibility of
finding an exception and the disposition to be considerate of husband-killing
wives is subject to change without notice. Almost any time there may come to
the consciousness of husband-jurors the thought of personal danger and juries
may take to the view that there is too much of the killing, with serious
consequences to the self-widowed.

But if there is a moral in the present wave of husband-killing
by wives and the freeing of the women, it is that husbands would do well to
walk circumspectly. If they can’t abide the premises without engaging in
unseemly conduct it would be safer to vacate. One may be in the right but after
he is dead and the woman and her friends tell how it was, he might be in doubt
himself if he hear the testimony.

Monday, January 26, 2015

FULL TEXT: We think women kill men rather freely in this
country [USA], and get away with it too easily. But our conjugal slaughter is
nothing to that in France nor is the feminine immunity so scandalous.

In the last couple of months [July-August 1930] there have
been about 40 feminine murderers tried in Paris Courts. In few cases was there
any real question of guilt – that is, if unlawful killing implies guilt. But
in every case but one the fair defendant was acquitted. The only prisoner found
guilty was sentenced to two years in prison.

“The Red Mode” they call it over there. Gallantry has much
more to do with it. From the masculine viewpoint it is carrying gallantry
pretty far. And yet they are male juries that acquit these female killers. What
do you make of it?

Saturday, January 24, 2015

Chapelle-Saint-Saveur,
France – Anne-Marie Guemuchot and her husband Pierre Moucaut, a journalist,
killed three of their babies over a five year period, from July 1873 to October
17, 1878, thew first two by poison, the last by smothering. They were arrested
and tried in 1878. In March 1879 the husband was sentenced to death (later
commuted) and the wife was sentenced to 20 years of hard labor. [StE]

FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 2): Hopkinsville (Kentucky) – The trial
of Mrs. Ora Lee Thacker, alleged slayer of two husbands, for the murder of her
first husband, Otho Henderson, in 1911, was postponed Wednesday in Circuit
Court here until September term. Physicians examined Mrs. Thacker, who was
carried into court, at the instance of defense counsel, who insisted that she
is insane. The woman has been in jail here since the slaying of her second
husband, Lewis Thacker, in February.

[Untitled, The Hamilton Daily News (Oh.), Jun. 12, 1926, p. 2]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 2 of 2): The remains of Lewis Robert
Thacker, brief mention of whose death was made in THE RECORD last week and who
was found dead by the L. & N. Railroad track two miles south of
Hopkinsville on Wednesday morning of last week [Feb. 3], were brought to Cadiz
last Friday afternoon and buried in the family lot in East End Cemetery.

The family formerly lived in Cadiz. A number of friends of
the family accompanied the remains from Hopkinsville, and funeral services were
conducted by Dr. R. B. Grider of the Hopkinsville Methodist church.

Many theories have been advanced during the past week as to
the cause of the young man’s death, but so far none of these have been fully
solved.

The wife of Thacker, Mrs. Ora Lee Thacker to whom he was
married secretly last November, and her two sons, eighteen and fifteen
respectively, were arrested as suspects. The younger son was released Saturday.
The wife and the other son were to have their examining trial yesterday morning
in Hopkinsville.

There was intimation that Mrs. Thacker might have caused the
man to be killed so she might get $8,000 insurance carried on his life. This
gave rise to some suspicion that a former husband died under peculiar
circumstances, and his body, after being buried four years, was taken up
Tuesday. It was so decomposed that no trace of poison could be found.

Ike Brown, proprietor of an automobile tire store in
Louisville, was arrested and brought to Hopkinsville but so far nothing has
developed to connect him with the killing.

A story from Hopkinsville to the LOUISVILLE TIMES of Monday
says:

The body of Thacker, who formerly was employed at the Elks’
Club in Louisville, was found beside the Louisville and Nashville Railway
tracks about two miles south of Hopkinsville, with two bullet holes in his
head, early Wednesday morning. Mrs. Thacker was arrested when it was learned
that two insurance policies, one for $5,000 and another for $3,000 had been
taken out on her husband a short time before and that she had threatened to
blow his brains out or have it done.

Brown said he had seen Thacker twice during the time he was visiting Mrs.
Thacker and that she had told him Thacker was her step brother. Not satisfied
with the explanation Brown said he had asked one of Mrs. Thacker’s sons who
Thacker was and the boy had told him he was only a man who was trying to go
with mama.

At the time of her arrest Mrs. Thacker produced a marriage certificate showing
she was married to Thacker November 5, 1925, twenty days after the first
insurance policy for $5,000 naming her as the beneficiary and wife, had been
issued to Thacker. She denies all knowledge of any insurance on the life of her
husband or that she had paid the premiums on the insurance for him. Authorities
have been unable to locate the policies, which officials of the Life and
Casualty Insurance Company of Nashville and the Metropolitan Company of
Louisville both claim were issued to Thacker.

One occasion when he visited Mrs. Thacker at 105 West Oak street Brown said,
Thacker came in and began quarreling with her because she was going out with
Brown. Mrs. Thacker began cursing Thacker and told him to “get upstairs or I’ll
kill you,” Brown said. Thacker went upstairs and Brown took the woman to a
show, he continued. It was after this incident, according to Brown that Mrs.
Thacker told him Thacker was her step-brother.

Thacker was afraid of the woman she treated him terribly, according to brown,
who said the couple did not get along at all. Brown said he, too, was afraid of
Mrs. Thacker because she always kept a gun on the mantel piece in her home.

Brown said he had denied knowing Mrs. Thacker when first questioned because he
did not want to get mixed up in the case.

Additional strands in the net of circumstantial evidence that authorities are
weaving around Mrs. Thacker were brought back by Captain J. C. Hanberry, who
returned from Louisville with Brown.

Captain Hanberry said he had talked to Mrs. E. Rudolph Thacker, 405 East
Broadway, Louisville, a sister in law of the murder victim, and Louis
Livingston, attorney in the Realty Building, and that both had told them that
Thacker feared his wife would kill him for his insurance. Mrs. Rudolph Thacker
and Livingston also told Captain Hanberry that Thacker had admitted to them
that he helped Mrs. Thacker burn her home here to collect the insurance money
and that she had promised him $300 for it, which he had never collected.

In her statement to Captain Hanberry, Mrs. Rudolph Thacker
said that on his last visit to her home in January, “Scrap” had told her he had
married Mrs. Thacker because she told him if he took out an insurance policy
and married her she would take care of him the rest of his days and in addition
she would give him the $300 fire insurance money.

Although he was 34 years old, Thacker’s mentality is said to
have been that of a 17 year old boy and members of his family claim Mrs.
Thacker exerted a powerful influence over him.

The last time she saw him, Mrs. Rudolph Thacker said “Scrap” told her, “I don’t
know whether you will ever see me again or not.” She said he gave no
explanation but that she knows he feared being killed because of the insurance
he carried. He told me he was afraid they would get him before he got his
$3000, and Mrs. Rudolph Thacker, and he told me Mrs. Henderson Thacker paid the
premiums on the insurance he carried.

In regard to the fire, Mrs. Rudolph Thacker said she was
living in Hopkinsville at the time and the two days before the fire Thacker
brought some suit cases over to her home saying they contained his National
Guard clothes, and that he wanted to leave them there for a while. She said she
opened the cases, and found they contained ladies wearing apparel and boys’ clothier
and that there was none of his own in them. About the same time she said, Mrs.
Henderson brought twenty six jars of canned fruit and vegetables to her home
and she wanted to leave them there for awhile.

Several days later the house burned, said Mrs. Rudolph Thacker, and she knew
something was up between them, so I made up my mind to watch. He (Scrap) stole
into the house one night and got these things and I followed him. He met her
and I heard her tell him, “We better not take any chances with this stuff.
Let’s go up the back streets.” The next day I told him what I knew and said
“For God’s sake, take one or we both go over the road.

Mrs. Rudolph Thacker said Thacker had admitted to her that he and Mrs.
Henderson had set fire to the house and said that Mrs. Henderson had promised
him $300 when she collected the insurance.

Mr. Livingston, in his statement to Captain Hanberry, said he also was adviser
to both Thacker and Mrs. Thacker, and that he had learned from both of them
that they had had numerous arguments and had threatened to tell on each other
in [illeg.] with the burning of the cottage. He said Mrs. Thacker had told him
she had consulted an attorney and he had advised her to marry Thacker that he
would be unable to testify against her if anything ever came about the house.

Livingston said that at the time Thacker came to him and told him Mrs. Thacker
had paid him part of the $300 she had promised him for burning the house, and
that she then stolen the money from him.

Livingston said he asked them if he was willing to make an affidavit to the
effect that Mrs. Henderson had stolen his money, and Mr. Thacker replied that
he was not because she would blow his brains if he did. Livingston also said
Thacker told him Mrs. Thacker threatened to kill him if he did not marry her
after the first insurance policy had been taken out in 1925, and that a man who
[illeg.] Hopkinsville had threatened him.
Both Thacker and Mrs. Thacker told him they had set fire to the house here
Livingston said.

Clarence Boyd, 111 South - street, Louisville, an employee of Ford Motor
Company, told Hanberry that a man whose name he did not know, but who works for
L. & N. shops, had beaten men up at one time in Mrs. Thacker’s room house
on Oak street and that Thacker had told his [illeg.]she had said he would kill him in time.

Authorities are now working on a theory that Thacker was a lonely spot along
the railroad more than a mile from any road and a half mile from where he was
shot twice in the head. They are unable to [illeg.] fact that neighbors in the
neighborhood of the Thacker home here heard shots the night of the murder and
saw an automobile drive to the side door of the place and they smelled burning
rags.

After Mrs. Thacker had been presented in Court Saturday, when the date of
preliminary hearing was set. Mrs. Thacker was heard to say “Don’t worry, They
don’t have a thing on us.

[“‘Scrap’ Thacker Buried In Cadiz - Remains Of Young Man
Killed In Hopkinsville Brought To Former Home - Cause of Death Still A Mystery
And Wife Held in Connection With Case,” Cadiz Record (Ky.), February 11, 1926,
p. ?]

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Allie Belchie’s name was immortalized in a local proverb.
Following is an entry of the “saying” she inspired and which became part of the
local culture.

***

ALLIE BELCHIE’S LATE WAKE.

She’s like Aillie Belchie,

Sinned to the nineteenth degree.

Said of those who are flagrant offenders. Allie, or Alice
Belchie; was a hind or cotter’s daughter at Lintlaw, in the parish of Bunckle.
It is reported, and credibly believed, that she murdered three of her
illegitimate children, at different times, by drowning them in the Leigate
pond, at the head of the Crook field, on the south side of the kail-yards. She
died in travail of her fourth child; and while some of the people of the place
were sitting up with her corpse
— holding her late wake — and drinking her dirgy — one of the decent neighbours, and most sponsibleman in the company, was called upon
to make an exercise on the
occasion. As the honest man prayed, he said, “The Lord hae mercy upon us a’ —
especially upon that damned bitch, Allie
Belchie, lying in the bed there, who has sinned to the nineteenth degree of fornication.”

[“Allie Belchie’s Late Wake,” in: George Henderson, The
Popular Rhymes, Sayings, and Proverbs of the County of Berwick, 1856, Printed
for the Author, New Castle-on-Tyne, p. 97; the original text gives “damned
bitch” as “d----d b----h”; “sponsible,” “hae” and “a’” are Scottish dialect.]

In 1788 the Kingdom of Tahiti was
established with Pomare I as its first ruler. His Queen was Ideah.

Following is an extract taken from a
missionary account.

***

EXCERPT: Mr. Bromhall lost his case of
surgical instruments, and when he inquired for them, they were all
returned by Ideah, except two small saws, which were afterwards found in her
possession. It was presently ascertained that she was in the habit of setting
her servants to steal for her. She was, in every respect, a bad woman. She
murdered three of her infants, after Pomare had said he would put a stop to the
custom. She had also promised that the Missionaries' wives should have her next
child to bring up; instead of keeping her promise, she killed it, and then came
to bring the Missionaries a great present of food, which they would not accept,
as they wished to convince her of the sinfulness of her conduct. She was highly
offended, and said she had a right to do what she chose
with her own children. The character of this Tahitian queen will not rise in
the estimation of you young ladies, by learning that she was a great warrior,
and one of the best wrestlers on the island; and in their wrestling matches she
was generally mistress of the ceremony. She was also a famous swimmer; the
natives were all fond of the water, as it is one of their favourite amusements
almost from their infancy. They were also fond of dancing and music, and in
these the queen could take the lead.

EXCERPT: In the middle of the last century a 6-foot-4
English lady bouncer named Gallus Mag, who kept her skirt up with suspenders,
was New York’s most famous gang lady. So efficient was Mag’s bouncing that she
killed four customers in one month, forcing the police to close the joint she
was presiding over. Her enemy and counterpart was Sadie the Goat, whose
favorite technique was butting an opponent cold with her head. The two got into
a fight which Maggie won after biting off one of Sadie’s ears which she kept as
a souvenir in a pickle jar.

Wikipedia: Gallus
Mag (real name unknown) was a 6-foot-tall female bouncer at a New York
City Water Street bar called The Hole in the Wall in the early 19th century,
who figures prominently in New York City folklore. Herbert Asbury's book The Gangs of New York thus describes
her:

"It was her
custom, after she’d felled an obstreperous customer with her club, to clutch
his ear between her teeth and so drag him to the door, amid the frenzied cheers
of the onlookers. If her victim protested she bit his ear off, and having cast
the fellow into the street she carefully deposited the detached member in a jar
of alcohol behind the bar…. She was one of the most feared denizens on the
waterfront and the police of the period shudderingly described her as the most
savage female they’d ever encountered."

FULL TEXT: Akron, Ohio – Doretta Kirksey, 42, of Akron, who
stabbed her two husbands to death, was charged with murder today in the stabbing
death of Wilbur Lashley, 46.

Police said Mrs. Kirksey was arguing with Lashley in her
home over ownership of some whiskey. Officers alleged in charging her with
Lashley’s death that she stabbed him in the chest and stomach with a five-inch
paring knife she had been using while eating watermelon when the argument began
Wednesday night.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Feminists tell us that women can do anything a man can
except two things:

1) lie about rape

2) lie about being “battered” by a man following his having been killed her (Dr. Elizabeth Sheehy).

The following collection may be of assistance in helping to
judge whether the notion of a woman killing a man and attempting to get off Scot free by invoking the “battered wife
syndrome,” unsupported by evidence, and even occurring while the victim was
sleeping, is really such a helpful, progressive, inclusive, sensitive idea.

***

***

The number at the left represents the number of stabs which
the victim was subjected to.

Molloy now faces three wilful murder
charges. Carsburg to-day was charged conjointly with Molloy on a wilful murder
charge. He is also charged on two counts of being an accessory after the fact
to wilful murder.

Molloy and Carsburg were conjointly
charged to-day that on or about March 15, 1950, at Terrick Station, near
Blackell, they wilfully murdered an unnamed female child of which Molloy had
been lately delivered.

Evidence of the arrest on this charge
was given by Detective Constable D. E. Dux. of Rockhampton. Molloy was further
charged that on or about April 16, 1951, at Cleeve Station, near Longreach, she
wilfully murdered an unnamed female child of which she had lately been
delivered.

Carsburg was further charged that on
or about April 16, 1951 at Cleeve Station, near Long reach, knowing that Molloy
had committed the crime he assisted her in order to enable her to escape
punishment.

Molloy also appeared on remand
charged that on February 11, 1946, at Mt. Brisbane, near Esk, did wilfully
murder an unnamed male child of which she had been lately delivered.

Carsburg also appeared on remand
charged that he, about February 13, 1946, knowing that Molloy had committed the
crime, assisted her in order to enable her to escape punishment.

On the application of the police
prosecutor, Sub-Inspector C. E. Risch, Mr. A. E. George, S. M., remanded Molloy
and Carsburg on all charges until January 29.

FULL TEXT (Article 2 of 3): “Oh, no!
Not That!” screamed Mrs. Josephine Ellen Molloy from the dock of Brisbane
Criminal Court on Wednesday when she was sentenced to life imprisonment for the
wilful murder of her child. Mrs. Molloy fell back into a corner of the dock, sobbing
bitterly, then slumped forward with her face buried in a handkerchief.

She was still sobbing when she was
led away to the cells. A jury took only a little over half an hour to her own
tiny baby at Cleeve Station, near Longreach, on April 16, 1951.

When the trial had opened, a
38-years-old fencing contractor, Herbert Carsburg, had stood alongside Mrs.
Molloy, charged with being an accessory after the fact. Later, however, Mr.
Justice Stanley ordered that Carsburg should be given a separate trial, and he
was remanded to the next criminal sittings com mencing tomorrow.

Det. Douglas Edward Dux said in
evidence Cars burg told him in Rockhampton on December 17, 1952: “The woman I
was living with has cleared off with another joker. She killed the three kids
we had when they were babies.” That, said Dux, started investigations and it
was found that three babies had been born to Molloy and disposed of.

Molloy looked up at the Criminal Court gallery and smiled as a
wardress led her down the stairway to the cells. Many women were in the
gallery.

Carsburg had pleaded not guilty to a
charge that on or about April 16, 1951, at Cleeve Station, near Longreach,
knowing that Molloy had committed wilful murder, he assisted her to enable her to
escape punishment. The jury took 15 minutes to find him guilty.

Mr. B. M. McLoughlin (for Carsburg)
said that for several years before the war Carsburg was a professional
pugilist. This might have left an effect on him.

The Crown Prosecutor (Mr. R. F.
Carter) said Carsburg was married and living apart from his wife. The two
children of the marriage were dead.

Sentencing Carsburg the Chief Justice
said his offence merited very substantial punishment.

After the court was adjourned,
Carsburg stepped out of the dock and lit a cigarette. He shook hands with Mr.
McLoughlin before he was led down to the cells. Mr. McLoughlin was instructed
by Nicol, Robinson, Palu and Kidd.

1961 – two children (son, 3; daughter, 2) died one month
apart of supposedly “natural causes.”

Apr. 7, 1963 – Kenneth Dwayne Hill, 2, strangled or
smothered.

***

FULL TEXT: Falmouth, Ky., April 26 – At 26, Mrs. Virginia
Hill has lost six of her seven children.

Two died of natural causes.

She admitted killing one other and setting a fire in which
three more died, officials said.

Mrs. Hill was in jail while the Pendleton county grand jury
took up her case today.

She was arrested after a pathologist found contusions on the
neck of Kenneth Hill, two, who died April 7. Police said Mrs. Hill admitted
smothering the boy with a pillow after her husband said he was leaving her, but
that she could give no reason for the act.

~ Signs Statement ~

Sheriff’s deputies said yesterday that Mrs. Hill signed a
statement saying she set the fire in which three of her children and a Falmouth
man died on Dec. 29, 1957.

“She didn’t give any reason for starting the fire; she just
said something about dropping a match in a box,” a deputy said. “But she said
she was separated from her husband at the time.”

Deputies said she has been charged with murder in Kenneth’s
death and with arson.

The fire victims were her children by a former husband,
Mervin Jenkins. They were Danny Ray, 26 months; Helen, 13 months, and Lee,
three months. The other victim was Theodore Hamilton, 45, who apparently was
overcome by smoke.

Authorities said Mrs. Hill has been married three times. Her
present husband is Billy Hill, a feed store worker.

Two other children of Mrs. Hill died a month in 1981. Their
deaths were listed at the time as caused by sickness.

Mrs. Hill’s last child, a son, was born four months ago and
is now staying with his grandmother, Mrs. Margie Perkins.

FULL TEXT: Falmouth, Ky. – A Pendleton circuit court jury
yesterday found Mrs. Virginia Hill, 26, mentally unfit to stand trial on five
charges of murder, four connected with death of her children.

Mrs. Hill was arrested in April after an autopsy showed
contusions on the neck of her 2-year-old son, Kenneth Dwayne Hill. Police said
she admitted smothering him.

The other charges were filed against Mrs. Hill as the result
of a fire December 29, 1957. The fire took the lives of her three small
children by two previous marriages and of Theodore Hamilton, 45, Falmouth, who
tried to rescue the tots.

[“As Unfit Trial – Jury Reports in Deaths of Her Three
Children,” The Kansas City Times (Mo.), Jul. 27, 1963, p. 5]

***

FULL TEXT: Falmouth, Ky. – Mrs. Virginia Hill, convicted of
killing her two-year-old son, Thursday was sentenced to 15-year prison terms on
each of four other manslaughter charges. The time is to be served concurrently
with her previous 15-year prison sentence.

The 28-year-old mother of seven was denied a new trial on
her earlier conviction by Pendleton Circuit Judge John T. Lair.

Judge Lair concurred with the recommendation of attorneys
that Mrs. Hill receive concurrent sentences in the deaths of three other Hill
receive concurrent sentences in the deaths of three other Hill children and a
neighbor man. She was accused of setting a fire to her apartment in 1957 in
which the four perished. The neighbor had attempted to rescue the children.

Mrs. Hill was found guilty June 3 of smothering her son,
Kenneth, with a pillow April 7, 1963.

Monday, January 19, 2015

FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 2): Dubuque – Mary Madigan, a
babysitter for at least a dozen Dubuque families, was scheduled to go to court
Saturday to face “some kind of homicide” charges in the deaths of three young
children.

Police said the 2-year-old Miss Madigan signed three
statements admitting that she was the sitter when three babies, ranging in age
from four months to three years, died.

The husky Miss Madigan, who stands 5 feet 8 and weighs 192
pounds, was described as being both mentally and physically handicapped.

No suspicion had been attached to Miss Madigan until the
county medical examiner determined that Gail Nemmers, 3, who had been left in
her care Thursday night, died of suffocation.

Then police Capt. Byrne O’Brien began looking looking into
the death of another child of Mr. Wayne Nemmers, Karen, 22 months, July 12 and
the death of Michael Fitzpatrick, 4 months, son of Mr. and Mrs. Russell
Fitzpatrick, July 14.

Miss Madigan who had acted as baby sitter for both of these
families, told police after her arrest and after her recovery from hysteria,
that she liked to “hold babies tight.”

“I was trying to give them love and affection,” she said.

Police chief Percy Lucas said the woman said the woman had
made three separate statements in which she related that:

The oldest Nemmers girl, Gail, was being held across her lap
and when the child cried she held her hand over it’s mouth, “quite a bit.”

She held Karen Nemmers and the Fitzpatrick boy with their
mouths close to her neck and Lucas quoted her as saying: “They seemed to gasp
for air, and their bodies went limp.”

In each case she put the babies back in their beds, but on
Thursday night, after Gail Nemmers had stopped breathing. Miss Madigan
telephoned the widowed mother with whom she lived, police said.

Dr. Donald McFarlane, county medical examiner, said there
was no indication in the autopsies of the other two children that death was
from other than natural causes. He said Karen Nemmers had a congenital heart
ailment and the Fitzpatrick boy had virus pneumonia.

“These conditions could be aggravated by suffocation,” Dr.
McFarlane said.

Loius Fautsch, attorney for Miss Madigan, said her left arm
is lame and injuries she suffered at birth patrially closed an eye. Police were
told she was born with a spastic paralysis.

The mother of the Fitzpatrick boy regarded Miss Madigan as a
good sitter who “took excellent care of the children and did extra things
around the house.”

Police said there had been no other incidents involving the
woman’s baby tending but that at least one family had refused to hire her
because the parents felt she was “too good to the children and would spoil
them.”

On the night Michael Fitzpatrick died his father and mother
went to an Amvets meeting.

“Miss Madigan did not appear to be overly devoted to
children,” Mrs. Fitzpatrick said. “But now as I think back to the night, she
did say she had no plans for the next day, so we could stay out until 2 or 3 a.
m. if we wanted to.”

FULL TEXT (Article 2 of 2): Dubuque, Ia. Jan. 8 – Mary
Madigan, 29, a baby-sitter who squeezed three youngsters to death when she
thought they begged her to “hold me tighter,” was sentenced to eight years in a
reformatory today [Jan. 8, 1961].

Judge Eugene F. Keane passed sentence after listening to a
psychiatric report by three physicians which said Miss Madigan was technically
sane.

The physicians said the 192 pound baby sitter had suffered
brain damage at birth and had congenital spastic paralysis and mental
deficiency.

~ She’s Still Sane ~

“Despite these
findings, paradoxically,” the report said, she was sane but did not know the
degree of harm which could come from her tight clutching of children.

The manslaughter charge was based on the death of Gail
Nemmers, 3, August 4. Gail was the second child of Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Nemmers
to die while under Miss Madigan’s care.

Police said she told them she picked up the children when
they became “fussy” and then held them tightly to her when she thought they
asked her to. In each case, the child’s body went limp.

The younger Nemmers girl and the Fitzpatrick boy were
assumed to have died of illnesses for which they were under a doctor’s care. An
autopsy on Gail’s death showed suffocation was the cause of the death.

Most of the parents for whom Miss Madigan had sat had only
one complaint about her work – she “spoiled”the youngsters by holding them all
the time.